Posted
by
samzenpuson Sunday April 28, 2013 @02:00PM
from the good-and-bad dept.

gmfeier writes "The EPA has significantly lowered its estimate of how much methane leaks during natural gas production. This has major implications for the fracking debate, but puts the EPA at odds with NOAA. From the article: 'The scope of the EPA's revision was vast. In a mid-April report on greenhouse emissions, the agency now says that tighter pollution controls instituted by the industry resulted in an average annual decrease of 41.6 million metric tons of methane emissions from 1990 through 2010, or more than 850 million metric tons overall. That's about a 20 percent reduction from previous estimates. The agency converts the methane emissions into their equivalent in carbon dioxide, following standard scientific practice.'"

They should take all their fracking gear, fracking sell it, and build some fracking wind turbines, solar towers, and solar panel arrays. That's really the only camp out there, assuming everyone allowed to go camping has a basic understanding of chemistry and the atmosphere.

Don't worry. The economics of solar and wind will crush gas, natural gas and coal.

But the portability and current infrastructure of petroleum energy is tough to beat. I'd like to see hydrogen do it, but there's still the infrastructure cost to ameliorate -- with the next generation of infrastructure tools likely coming out before the first widely used generation is paid for. It's a tough problem, only easy when you handwave the real concerns (or throw in massively improbable solutions like "we just need to change society", the ultimate universal solvent of non-practical discussions).

Infrastructure is not the problem - thermodynamics is. Hydrogen is not a source of energy, since there isn't any of it laying around that we can use.

Pick one: fission, fusion, or "Little House on the Prarie" standard of living. Wind and solar fall into the last category, by the way.

Or you can use your nice fission, fusion or orbital solar conversion (which does *not* fall into that last category), and make hydrogen. Why? Because then you have a transportable energy... as opposed to transmittable energy, a la power lines. Vehicles, especially those pesky planes, do poorly with extension cords.

To reproduce modern tech with a new energy source, you need to have a transportable energy "fuel". If you have a solid source of power, you can generate hydrogen and carry it from here to the

But you can't store the power delivered by those turbines, towers and panels. Can't run a truck on it. Nor can you even use the power you get when suddenly wind power dumps a lot of electricity, close to their max power (which is rare btw) whereas the hour before you were getting squat shit from it.

Barring some ill-defined or expensive solution, all these "renewable" energies require near-line power plants that burn, you name it, frackin' natural gas.

Of course you can store the power. What an absurd assertion. We may not have the storage set up right now, but it is eminently storable. You can't run a truck on it, but you certainly _can_ run trains on it.

It's imminently storable, but it's not eminently storable. You have no concept of the magnitude of power used in the western world. It's just not plausible with current technology to store enough solar energy for use overnight. There are also some severe scale problems with replacing diesel vehicles with electricity. Large numbers are a bitch, and physics still wins.

Actually, cold winters would not be a serious problem for pumped storage. At most, you get an ice layer a few feet thick on top of the water you are storing. You can heat the pipes, etc. as needed to keep them from freezing.

No, collecting getting solar energy will be a problem in the land of the midnight sun. I suppose wind-power would be a viable renewable power source though.

This is a really lame straw-man. Of course in the middle of winter in Alaska solar isn't going to work, but I've been to Anchorage. It's about the size of Brattleboro. We can keep running Anchorage off of fossil fuels while we work on an alternative, while still substantially reducing our carbon footprint in the lower 48. I have no idea what the winds are like up there in the winter, so whether you can generate wind power I don't know, but there's certainly plenty of wide open space to put the turbi

Moving to solar will likely mean moving to less of a 24/7 economy. We'll have to cut back on nighttime activity. We'll have some nighttime power from wind so the world won't go completely dark at night.
As for energy for home heating, storage is a solvable problem. Put a bank of rocks under your house, heat them during the day when energy is available, and use the stored heat to keep the house warm at night.
Another energy storage technology - carbon nanotube ultracapacitors - is under development and cou

This is kind of ridiculous. Just insulate and seal your house properly and use a heat recovery ventilator, and you won't need fancy heat storage systems, because your house won't cool off as much overnight. If you're going to do a big engineering project, you might as well actually _save_ energy rather than putting in a huge energy storage system and bleeding all that energy out into the night through your poorly insulated, badly sealed walls.

Yes you can store the power. All you need to do is convert the energy into some other form when the sun is shining and release that energy when it is not. Something like the Dinorwig power station in North Wales, UK. Whilst that was built for something very different, (to supply power for short surge demands), the principle holds for storing renewable power. The reason it isn't currently done for renewable power is because the generators get more money from replacing fossil fuel based power generation, than

Last I heard the jury was still out on the earthquake issue. But if fracking does actually cause earthquakes that's an unintended benefit not cost. The amount of energy being put into the ground during fracking is minuscule. The energy released in a quake is already stored there, and it is going to come out via earthquake (or eruption if that avenue is available) eventually. It's generally less damaging to have more smaller earthquakes than fewer larger ones.

From the AP article:"The EPA said it made the changes based on expert reviews and new data from several sources, including a report funded by the oil and gas industry. But the estimates aren't based on independent field tests of actual emissions, and some scientists said that's a problem."So... the industry produced a report which claimed it has really cleaned up its act... and we should believe them?

No, not science... just speculation.
They specifically said that they didn't measure actual field emissions (that's the science part).

The EPA didn't. They took somebody's word that they did the measurements and accepted the results on face value. Considering the main thrust of this is from an industry-backed report, I find it very suspicious.

"The EPA said it made the changes based on expert reviews and new data from several sources, including a report funded by the oil and gas industry.

Note the "several sources" and "a report funded by the oil and gas industry".

So, no, it's not just an industry report behind this. It might be *gasp* actual science.

Those sources were 'expert reviews' of unnamed experts. Where are the peer-reviewed articles? Where are the links that show somebody, anybody did real live science on this instead of an industry-backed report and 'expert reviews'? If it's not peer-reviewed, it's not verifiable.

For instance, I could claim I built a flying saucer in my back yard, complete with working antigravity thrusters and a ftl drive. Without peer review, it would be proper to call me a fake until I proved my work to physicists.

It doesn't sound like science to me. Still, a lot can frequently be done with proper reanalysis of the data.

Unfortunately, there have been a few too many similar examples where the "science" turned out to be psychology, sociology, or political science rather than the purported specialty. One thinks, e.g., of Elsevier publishing a Journal that was totally funded by one of the major durg companies, and where all the reviewers worked for that company. It took several years for that one to come to light.

So there's less methane being released. OK, that's good and all--but it still doesn't address the several other really important problems with fracking.

Like the fact that the toxic chemicals they use to force apart the shale layers are a) basically unknown, b) often left down there, and c) known to be contaminating groundwater in some instances. Or the fact that the gas companies come in, tear up the countryside, create an ecological disaster, make vast amounts of money, and then, when they decide it's no longer worth their time--they just pack up and leave. And the local communities get to deal with the mess for the next 100 years or so.

The basic problem is that there's insufficient regulation here. Preventing companies from exploiting natural resources for tremendous profit while leaving behind a horrific environmental mess--and, in general, preventing privatized profits with socialized costs--is precisely what regulation is best for. The market not only will not deal with these issues, it cannot. It has no way of taking account of the externalities associated with hydrofracking.

Put in place some good common-sense regulation of hydrofracking, with enough teeth to make it actually mean something, and then we can talk about allowing it to happen within 100 miles of my house.

And yes, I live in the northernmost extension of the Marcellus shale in upstate NY, so this issue does affect me personally.

Oh no, not chemicals! The vast, vast majority of what is pumped is water.

Are you that fucking stupid??? Yes, there's only about 0.5% chemical additives, yes the "vast majority" is water (if you exclude the propants, which are pretty benign). But some of the chemicals are highly toxic, and there's millions of gallons used per fracturing, so you're talking about thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals being pumped into the ground every time.

Widespread contamination has not been demonstrated, but there is as-yet unquantified risk--and examples of contamination.

I'd better go tell my every gas station in the US, they're got a problem!

As far as your claim that you can't quantify the risks, why don't you try and do so? Here's a hint: It's doable. There are several ways you can do it, either from a geology direction (Hint: what are the characteristics of a hydrocarbon reservoir?) or from a public safety direction (Perhaps deaths and injuries/year? It's not like we don't have a massive amount of field testing from the pa

I'd better go tell my every gas station in the US, they're got a problem!

Well, as a matter of fact this was a problem for them. Many smaller stations that did marginal volume were forced out of business.

As far as your claim that you can't quantify the risks, why don't you try and do so? Here's a hint: It's doable. There are several ways you can do it, either from a geology direction (Hint: what are the characteristics of a hydrocarbon reservoir?) or from a public safety direction (Perhaps deaths and injuries/year? It's not like we don't have a massive amount of field testing from the past two decades.... Just to be fair, do a comparison to a comparison to the technology that cheap gas is reducing, which is coal).

OK, the question "stupid, or industry shill?" has been answered. There are problems with the industry's claims about the geology, and it's not all replacing coal.

You should note that I would not advocate for a ban, but rather much stricter oversight, which I'm sure you'll deride as unnecessary.

Oh, no, I agree, there is evidence that oversight isn't strict enough. There are also questions about sourcing the water used for fracking, and of course concerns for what to do with waste afterwards; it is a much newer technology and regulation has clearly lagged behind because of it.

But the fact remains, when you pump water and soap 3000 ft below the surface, into an area where there is a reservoir, and you are worried about what it getting out... you sound like a paranoid anti-science ignoramus.

But the fact remains, when you pump water and soap 3000 ft below the surface, into an area where there is a reservoir, and you are worried about what it getting out... you sound like a paranoid anti-science ignoramus.

It's what that water come back out with that is a big problem. You think it comes back out as soap?

Hints won't work here. One of the key characteristics of a hydrocarbon reservoir is that it keeps chemicals in one place. Else it wouldn't be a reservoir. These chemicals can be oil or they can be the less valuable fracking chemicals that drillers replace oil with.

I'm merely pointing out that reservoirs by their nature, hold things. When properly done, fracking (a procedure that is incidentally many decades old) isn't going to change that.

As I see it, the complaints about fracking chemicals leaking into water supplies are really complaints about drilling companies not following good procedure. In turn, that would mean regulatory agencies aren't enforcing existing regulation. I gather drillers who have taken short cuts have indeed caused some degree of damage over

It's what that water come back out with that is a big problem. You think it comes back out as soap?

Of course, we don't want that nasty oil. Why else would we be pumping it out of the ground as fast as we can?

That isn't what I'm talking about. In my area, there are many several acre ponds that hold the returned fracking fluid. It goes down as whatever it's composition, and comes back up as a very saline and whatever other elements are in that rock, brew. Not all of the stuff in the brew plays nice with living organisms.

I have no issue with th econcept of pumping gas and even fracking. But to just declar

In my area, there are many several acre ponds that hold the returned fracking fluid. It goes down as whatever it's composition, and comes back up as a very saline and whatever other elements are in that rock, brew.

Having nasty stuff in a few ponds (and which at some point can be pumped back underground to the reservoir in question) is not the same thing as "destroy half the planet".

Because when you take the "Energy uber alles, and fuck the rest of ya" approach, the end result is not money gained, but money lost.

That's not what's happening here. We happen to need oil and fracking happens to be a way to deliver it efficiently.

Because when you take the "Energy uber alles, and fuck the rest of ya" approach, the end result is not money gained, but money lost.

That's not what's happening here. We happen to need oil and fracking happens to be a way to deliver it efficiently.

If you want to see what energy companies do when they are not held to the task, I could take you on an awesome tour of land permanently altered by these people. If we train astronauts for going to mars, there are large stretches that look very much like the red planet. Look out for the abandoned highwalls, and don't even drink the water. Some of the creeks, like the Red Moshannon, you'll be better off to use a fiberglass canoe. Aluminum ones get eaten, although they are shiny for a while. Water pH has been

I was answering the question why we're pumping oil as fast as we can, not fracking specifically.

And I was pointing out that the US acts the same even though government isn't in charge. I also wanted to make the point that most of the world has little to do with OPEC governments.

The costs are just passed on to the consumers (the people).

And to the everyone else in the gasoline supply chain. Competion means you can't pass all of your costs on to the end consumer else you get undercut.

And much of that is wasted to enrich the government's friends rather than accomplishing results, as most government projects go. Of course, where does the government get all this money? From the people, and thus the people are chained to more taxes and fees.

The outrage created by the glory days of coal has been in large part mitigated

This has nothing to do with regulated oil production.

Of course we need oil and gas. At some point though, we aren't supposed to destroy the land for everyone in the future. But fuck the fishermen, the hunters, the foresters, the real estate people, the farmers and the people that live there.

Land owners do quite well. They get a piece of the action for oil wells on their land. And oil doesn't require a lot of real estate unlike surface mining of coal.

After that gas is extracted, the Utica shale is next. It's deeper and lies over a larger area.

So it's even more isolated from ground water.

But they need to extract the stuff with an eye toward the environment. That should be interesting.

Should be no difference. Environmental regulations have been around for a while.

The local economies are BOOMING in Canada with the wealth being distributed as all liberals in America wish it were here. Everyone is prospering and the fracking will continue for a very long time...they get more oil from a single drill point than traditional drilling...that is the point...less impact and cost and harm to the environment.

Proof that you have no idea what you are talkinng about. In My area - Pennsylvania, which until recently didn't even hav ean extraction fee, so there was a lot more reasons to frack here. Job boom? Most employees were "independent contractors, which means no health care, not HR type work, absolutely no benefits. A friend worked there as a geologist. Those booming gmanna from heaven economic benefits?

People get too hung up on the "chemicals" side of this. Sure, they put a few additives in there to keep it all flowing smoothly, but there's nothing to get excited about.

The problem with frakking is that we really don't have any way of predicting exactly where the rocks will fracture. You just pump water down there and hope for the best. If we can work out some way to analyse the structure and frack in such a way that we get the oil, but don't breach groundwater tables or the surface then we'll be golden.

Ground water for human consumption comes from the upper 100 meters or so. Gas is produced fro a depth of more than 2000 meters. The water down there is undrinkable toxic brine. Adding some more salts to it makes no big difference and it stays down there, it is not produced to the surface.

Fracking produces unpredictable fracturing of the ground and when you talking about tens of thousands of wells, avoiding mixing is impossible. Want the proof, quite fucking simple. That is exactly why the legislated to exempt fracking from water pollution controls. They knew 100% with out doubt they would be polluting the environment, they wanted the profits and to fuck over everyone else who has to clean up the mess.

...whether in the fracking or anti-fracking camp, both groups are in it regardless of the outcome or truth. There is no reasoning that is ever accepted today to end a matter. Everyone is out for himself. There is no integrity left anywhere in the world.

Fracking obviously comes with a short list of things that could be harmful. But these are things you can certainly mitigate, just as we do with everything else.

Rules like, "Ok fine, but you can't use [highly toxic substance] in the fluid." Not even at the ridiculously minimal concentrations it's normally used. Or, "Here are the steps that needs to be performed to minimize potential issues with methane..."

In a sane world, we'd just insist that those things are done, and go on with our lives.

Gas has been flared in parts of Nigeria for over 40 years, 24/7/365. [justiceinnigerianow.org] I've wondered how that stacks up against the more intensive drilling going on in NA. The energy industry does some remarkably odious things outside of the jurisdiction of the developed world.

I also see that plans are underway for Nigeria to reduce gas flaring to two per cent by 2014 [oilreviewafrica.com], and supposedly they've already gone from 30% in 2010 to only 11% now, so they're on their way to making this a moot point/non-issue - supposedly. I wonder how the rest of Nigeria's notoriously awful fossil fuel extraction is coming along, assuming this isn't all propaganda/lies.

Aside from NOAA and NASA, can anyone name a federal agency that hasn't yet been purchased by private corporations? The FBI conducts raids for the MPAA and RIAA. The EPA is laughable. The FCC is run by telecoms. Our laws are delivered to our legislators by lobbyists. We know where the CIA gets a good chunk of its money from. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the NSA does whatever McAfee tells them to. What happened to a government that was supposed to represent people? It's nothing but a bunch of corpora

Here in Australia a recent report showed that Coal Seam Gas exploration in this country was waved past all the usual environmental checks-and-balances by over-eager Government departments promised literally thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue.

And when I say "waved past" for example there was a specific case of an "environmental impact study" which *completely dopped* an entire chapter (er, the only chapter) evaluating contamination of the water table, which (oddly enough) was actually THE